full-disclosure - Suggestion for IDS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A5218B04D814F1548CC3C6C1@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
Date: Wed Sep 28 16:49:10 2005
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: Suggestion for IDS 

--On Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:37:38 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu 
wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:01:34 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said:
>
>> While I do agree with the statement made "Quite frankly, anybody who
>> already has a PIX installed and wants to install an IPS needs to quantify
>> *exactly* what protection the PIX is failing to provide before they go
>> shopping for anything" to a degree, I also disagree with that statement
>> since it eludes to the thinking that solely a PIX will save your ass. It
>> won't, nor will any other firewall, nor will any other product combined
>> with any OTHER product and so on.
>
> Obviously, the original poster isn't thinking that a PIX will save their
> ass, because they're in the market for something in addition :)
>
> They should be figuring out *why* they need more protection (quite
> frankly, for many places, a *properly configured and maintained* PIX is
> quite sufficient),

Not only was the PIX (for us) not sufficient, it wasn't robust enough. 
We're ditching our PIXes for OpenBSD and pf.

If you NAT a lot, PIX can't handle the load.  It also isn't flexible enough.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/